Planting the seeds of freedom
By Henry Lamb
web posted August 23, 2004
Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, America's European
allies were quite appreciative of U.S. power which assured that
the communist tide would not wash across their borders. The
U.S. and the Soviet Union were caught in a "balance of power"
struggle that affected the rest of the world only incidentally.
For more than a decade, the world has been reshaping its vision,
and the United States is no longer needed to protect the borders
of its European allies. Instead of its protector, the U.S. is now
seen as an obstacle to European aspirations. In the rest of the
world, the U.S. is seen as a threat to unbridled ambitions of
would-be dictators and religious zealots.
As the world's only super-power, the U.S. has emerged as the
primary target of every ideology that opposes capitalism and
representative government - which describes most of the rest of
the world.
Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the American people
clearly understood that the nation's first priority was to block the
spread of communism. As this need evaporated, America's role
in the world became less clear and subject to competing political
forces.
The attack on September 11, 2001, threw a horrendous monkey
wrench into the normal political process. Suddenly, what was
perceived by many Americans as a new enemy, sucked the air
from all other competing political objectives. It didn't take long,
however, for the various political forces to find ways to use the
new enemy as a way to advance their own political agenda.
France, Russia, and Germany quickly used the new enemy as a
way to mount pressure on the U.S. to submit to the will of the
international community. The anti-capitalists quickly mobilized to
label the U.S. response as an excuse to seize oil for greedy
corporations. And the religious zealots instantly celebrated the
bravery and courage of their martyrs, using the U.S. response as
a recruiting tool.
In the United States, people are taking a little longer to figure out
what should be the appropriate response for the nation, and
what is the appropriate role for the U.S. in the world of the
future.
In America, people seem to be falling into one of three distinct
categories. One group seems to believe that the war on terror is
wrongheaded; that Americans should not be fighting in Iraq or
Afghanistan; that the terror attacks are simply a reaction to U.S.
foreign policy, especially U.S. support for Israel.
Another group believes that the U.S. should develop its response
only within the United Nations, and let the international
community assume the responsibility for the terrorist threat.
The third group believes that the U.S. must do whatever it takes
to defend Americans from any threat, with the help of other
nations if possible, but without it if necessary.
The view held by the first group was expressed enthusiastically
by Howard Dean during the Democrat primaries. Despite early
exuberant support, it was not enough to implant Dean and his
views about the war at the head of the Democrat presidential
ticket.
The group which wants the United Nations to direct the war on
terror includes former Ambassador Richard Holbrook, often
touted as Secretary of State in a Kerry administration. Kerry
himself, however, most recently says he would not allow the
U.N. to veto U.S. action, but also says he will enlist the aid of
the same European allies who refused aid to the Bush
administration. This group also includes the Democratic
Socialists of America, the Socialist Party USA, and
A.N.S.W.E.R., a radical activist front-group for wealthy
socialists.
The third group believes that the U.S. should not look to any
other nation, or to the U.N. for permission to do whatever is
necessary to defend the United States. This group realizes that
both Afghanistan and Iraq are but different battlefields in a much
bigger war.
The war is between Islamic fanaticism, and whatever stands in its
way. The U.S. is the enemy of Islamic fanaticism because the
freedom and prosperity Americans enjoy offer a better future to
Islamic youth than does early martyrdom. Islamic fanaticism
cannot survive where representative government provides
individual freedom and the opportunity for personal prosperity.
Before the fruits of freedom can be harvested, the ground must
be plowed, the seed planted, and carefully cultivated through a
long growing season. This third group realizes that in Afghanistan
and Iraq, we are still in the plowing stage, in preparation for
planting the only hope the world has for a peaceful, prosperous
future.
Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental
Conservation Organization (ECO), and chairman of Sovereignty
International.
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com